Download - Chapter 5 Randomization Methods
#1
Chapter 5Chapter 5
Randomization MethodsRandomization Methods
#2
RANDOMIZATIONRANDOMIZATION
• Why randomize
• What a random series is
• How to randomize
#3
Randomization (1)Randomization (1)• Rationale
• Reference: Byar et al (1976) NEJM 274:74-80.
• Best way to find out which therapy is best• Reduce risk of current and future patients
of being on harmful treatment
#4
Randomization (2)Randomization (2)
Basic Benefits of Randomization• Eliminates assignment basis• Tends to produce comparable groups• Produces valid statistical tests
Basic MethodsRef: Zelen JCD 27:365-375, 1974.
Pocock Biometrics 35:183-197, 1979
#5
Goal: Achieve Comparable Groups to Allow Unbiased Estimate of
Treatment
Beta-Blocker Heart Attack TrialBaseline Comparisons
Propranolol Placebo (N-1,916) (N-1,921)
Average Age (yrs) 55.2 55.5Male (%) 83.8 85.2White (%) 89.3 88.4Systolic BP 112.3 111.7Diastolic BP 72.6 72.3Heart rate 76.2 75.7Cholesterol 212.7 213.6Current smoker (%) 57.3 56.8
#6
Nature of Random Numbers Nature of Random Numbers and Randomnessand Randomness
• A completely random sequence of digits is a mathematicalidealization
• Each digit occurs equally frequently in the whole sequence• Adjacent (set of) digits are completely independent of one another • Moderately long sections of the whole show substantial regularity
• A table of random digits• Produced by a process which will give results closely approximating to the mathematical idealization• Tested to check that it behaves as a finite section from a completely random series should• Randomness is a property of the table as a whole• Different numbers in the table are independent
#7
Allocation Procedures Allocation Procedures to Achieve Balanceto Achieve Balance
• Simple randomization
• Biased coin randomization
• Permuted block randomization
• Balanced permuted block randomization
• Stratified randomization
• Minimization method
#8
Randomization & Balance (1)Randomization & Balance (1)
n = 100
p = ½
s = #heads V(s) = np(1-p) = 100 · ½ · ½ = 25
E(s) = n · p = 50
60SP 50-60 np-SP
25
5060
25
npSP
5
10 ΖP
.0252 ΖP
#9
Randomization & Balance (2)Randomization & Balance (2)
n = 20
p = ½
E(s) = 10
V(s) = np(1-p) = 20/4 = 5
12SP
5
1012
V(s)
npSP
5
2 ΖP
#10
Simple Random AllocationSimple Random AllocationA specified probability, usually equal, of patients assigned to each treatment arm, remains constant or may change but not a function of covariates or response
a. Fixed Random Allocation• n known in advance, exactly• n/2 selected at random & assigned to Trt A, rest to Trt B
b. Complete Randomization (most common)• n not exactly known• marginal and conditional probability of assignment = 1/2• analogous to a coin flip (random digits)
#11
Simple RandomizationSimple Randomization• Advantage: simple and easy to implement
• Disadvantage: At any point in time, there may be an imbalance in the number of subjects on each treatment• With n = 20 on two treatments A and B, the chance
of a 12:8 split or worse is approximately 0.5• With n = 100, the chance of a 60:40 split or worse is
approximately 0.025• Balance improves as the sample size n increases
• Thus desirable to restrict randomization to ensure balance throughout the trial
#12
Simple Randomization Simple Randomization
For two treatmentsassign A for digits 0-4
B for digits 5-9For three treatments
assign A for digits 1-3 B for digits 4-6 C for digits 7-9 and ignore 0
#13
Simple Randomization Simple Randomization
For four treatmentsassign A for digits 1-2
B for digits 3-4 C for digits 5-6 D for digits 7-8 and ignore 0 and 9
#14
Restricted RandomizationRestricted Randomization
• Simple randomization does not guarantee balance over time in each realization
• Patient characteristics can change during recruitment (e.g. early pts sicker than later)
• Restricted randomizations guarantee balance1. Permuted-block2. Biased coin (Efron)3. Urn design (LJ Wei)
#15
Permuted-Block Randomization (1)Permuted-Block Randomization (1)• Simple randomization does not guarantee balance in numbers
during trial–If patient characteristics change with time, early imbalances –can't be corrected–Need to avoid runs in Trt assignment
• Permuted Block insures balance over time
• Basic Idea–Divide potential patients into B groups or blocks of size 2m –Randomize each block such that m patients are allocated to A and m to B–Total sample size of 2m B–For each block, there are possible realizations
–(assuming 2 treatments, A & B)–Maximum imbalance at any time = 2m/2 = m
2 !
2!
m
m
#16
Method 1: Example
• Block size 2m = 4 2 Trts A,B } = 6 possible
• Write down all possible assignments
• For each block, randomly choose one of the six possible arrangements
• {AABB, ABAB, BAAB, BABA, BBAA, ABBA}
ABAB BABA ......
Pts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Permuted-Block Randomization (2)Permuted-Block Randomization (2)
4!
2 2!
#17
• Method 2: In each block, generate a uniform random number for each treatment (Trt), then rank the treatments in order
Trt in Random Trt in any order Number Rank rank order
A 0.07 1 AA 0.73 3 B B 0.87 4 AB 0.31 2 B
Permuted-Block Randomization (3)Permuted-Block Randomization (3)
#18
• Concerns
- If blocking is not masked, the sequence become
somewhat predictable (e.g. 2m = 4)
A B A B B A B ? Must be A.
A A Must be B B.
- This could lead to selection bias
• Simple Solution to Selection Bias* Do not reveal blocking mechanism* Use random block sizes
• If treatment is double blind, no selection bias
Permuted-Block Randomization (4)Permuted-Block Randomization (4)
#19
Biased Coin Design (BCD)Biased Coin Design (BCD)Efron (1971) Efron (1971) BiometrikaBiometrika
• Allocation probability to Treatment A changes to keep balance in each group nearly equal
• BCD (p)– Assume two treatments A & B– D = nA -nB "running difference" n = nA + nB
– Define p = prob of assigning Trt > 1/2– e.g. PA = prob of assigning Trt A
If D = 0, PA = 1/2
D > 0, PA = 1 - p Excess A's
D < 0, PA = p Excess B's• Efron suggests p=2/3
D > 0 PA = 1/3 D < 0 PA = 2/3
#20
Urn RandomizationUrn RandomizationWei & Lachin: Controlled Clinical Trials, 1988
• A generalization of Biased Coin Designs• BCD correction probability (e.g. 2/3) remains constant
regardless of the degree of imbalance• Urn design modifies p as a function of the degree of
imbalance• U(, ) & two Trts (A,B)
–0. Urn with white, red balls to start
–1. Ball is drawn at random & replaced
–2. If red, assign B
If white, assign A
–3. Add balls of opposite color
(e.g. If red, add white)
–4. Go to 1.
• Permutational tests are available, but software not as easy.
#21
Analysis & InferenceAnalysis & Inference• Most analyses do not incorporate blocking
• Need to consider effects of ignoring blocks– Actually, most important question is whether we should use complete
randomization and take a chance of imbalance or use permuted-block and ignore blocks
• Homogeneous or Heterogeneous Time Pop. Model– Homogeneous in Time
• Blocking probably not needed, but if blocking ignored, no problem
– Heterogeneoous in Time
• Blocking useful, intrablock correlations induced
• Ignoring blocking most likely conservative
• Model based inferences not affected by treatment allocation scheme. Ref: Begg & Kalish (Biometrics, 1984)
#22
Kalish & Begg Kalish & Begg Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985Controlled Clinical Trials, 1985
Time Trend– Impact of typical time trends (based on ECOG pts)
on nominal p-values likely to be negligible
– A very strong time trend can have non-negligible effect on p-value
– If time trends cause a wide range of response rates, adjust for time strata as a co-variate. This variation likely to be noticed during interim analysis.
#23
Balancing on Balancing on Baseline CovariatesBaseline Covariates
• Stratified Randomization
• Covariate Adaptive– Minimization– Pocock & Simon
#24
• May desire to have treatment groups balanced with respect to prognostic or risk factors (co-variates)
• For large studies, randomization “tends” to give balance • For smaller studies a better guarantee may be needed
• Divide each risk factor into discrete categories
Number of strata
f = # risk factors;
li = number of categories in factor i
• Randomize within each stratum
• For stratified randomization, randomization must be restricted! Otherwise, (if CRD was used), no balance is guaranteed despite the effort.
i
f
i
1
Stratified Randomization (1)Stratified Randomization (1)
#25
Example
Sex (M,F)
and
Risk (H,L)
1 2 FactorsX
2 2 Levels in each
4 Strata3
4
H
L
H
L
M
F
For stratified randomization, randomization must be restricted!Otherwise, (if CRD was used), no balance is guaranteed despite the effort!
#26
Stratified Randomization (2)Stratified Randomization (2)• Define strata
• Randomization is performed within each stratum and is usually blocked
• Example: Age, < 40, 41-60, >60; Sex, M, FTotal number of strata = 3 x 2 = 6
Age Male Female 40 ABBA, BAAB, … BABA, BAAB, ...
41-60 BBAA, ABAB, ... ABAB, BBAA, ...
>60 AABB, ABBA, ... BAAB, ABAB, ..
#27
Stratified Randomization (3)Stratified Randomization (3)
• The block size should be relative small to maintain balance in small strata, and to insure that the overall imbalance is not too great
• With several strata, predictability should not be a problem
• Increased number of stratification variables or increased number of levels within strata lead to fewer patients per stratum
• In small sample size studies, sparse data in many cells defeats the purpose of stratification
• Stratification factors should be used in the analysis
• Otherwise, the overall test will be conservative
#28
CommentComment
• For multicenter trials, clinic should be a factor
Gives replication of “same” experiment.
• Strictly speaking, analysis should take the particular randomization process into account; usually ignored (especially blocking) & thereby losing some sensitivity.
• Stratification can be used only to a limited extent, especially for small trials where it's the most useful;
i.e. many empty or partly filled strata.
• If stratification is used, restricted randomization within strata must be used.
#29
Minimization Method (1)Minimization Method (1)• An attempt to resolve the problem of empty strata when trying
to balance on many factors with a small number of subjects
• Balances Trt assignment simultaneously over many strata
• Used when the number of strata is large relative to sample size as stratified randomization would yield sparse strata
• A multiple risk factors need to be incorporated into a score for degree of imbalance
• Need to keep a running total of allocation by strata
• Also known as the dynamic allocation
• Logistically more complicated
• Does not balance within cross-classified stratum cells; balances over the marginal totals of each stratum, separately
#30
Example: Minimization Method (a)Example: Minimization Method (a)• Three stratification factors: Sex (2 levels),
age (3 levels), and disease stage (3 levels)• Suppose there are 50 patients enrolled and the
51st patient is male, age 63, and stage III
Trt A Trt BSex Male 16 14
Female 10 10Age < 40 13 12
41-60 9 6> 60 4 6
Disease Stage I 6 4Stage II 13 16
Stage III 7 4Total 26 24
#31
Example: Minimization Method (b)Example: Minimization Method (b)
• Method: Keep a current list of the total patients on each treatment for each stratification factor level
Consider the lines from the table above for that patient's stratification levels only
Sign of
Trt A Trt B DifferenceMale 16 14 +Age > 60 4 6 -Stage III 7 4 +Total 27 24 2 +s and 1 -
#32
• Two possible criteria:
• Count only the direction (sign) of the difference in each category. Trt A is “ahead” in two categories out of three, so assign the patient to Trt B
• Add the total overall categories (27 As vs 24 Bs). Since Trt A is “ahead,” assign the patient to Trt B
Example: Minimization Method (c)Example: Minimization Method (c)
#33
Minimization Method (2)Minimization Method (2)• These two criteria will usually agree, but not always
• Choose one of the two criteria to be used for the entire study
• Both criteria will lead to reasonable balance
• When there is a tie, use simple randomization
• Generalization is possible
• Balance by margins does not guarantee overall treatment balance, or balance within stratum cells
#34
Covariate Adaptive AllocationCovariate Adaptive Allocation(Sequential Balanced Stratification)(Sequential Balanced Stratification)
Pocock & Simon, Pocock & Simon, Biometrics,Biometrics, 1975; 1975; Efron, Efron, BiometrikaBiometrika, 1971, 1971
• Goal is to balance on a number of factors but with "small" numbers of subjects
• In a simple case, if at some point Trt A has more older patients than Trt B, next few older patients should more likely be given Trt B until "balance" is achieved
• Several risk factors can be incorporated into a score for degree of imbalance B(t) for placing next patient on treatment t (A or B)
• Place patient on treatment with probability p > 1/2 which causes the smallest B(t), or the least imbalance
• More complicated to implement - usually requires a small "desk top" computer
#35
Example: Baseline Adaptive RandomizationExample: Baseline Adaptive Randomization
• Assume 2 treatments (1 & 2)
2 prognostic factors (1 & 2) (Gender & Risk Group)
Factor 1 - 2 levels (M & F)
Factor 2 - 3 levels (High, Medium & Low Risk)
Let B(t) = Wi Range (xit1, xi
t2) wi = weight for each factor
e.g. w1 = 3 w1/w2 = 1.5
w2 = 2
xij = number of patients in ith factor and jth treatment
xitj = change in xij if next patient assigned treatment t
• Let P = 2/3 for smallest B(t) Pi = (2/3, 1/3)
• Assume we have already randomized 50 patients• Now 51st pt.
Male (1st level, factor 1)
Low Risk (3rd level, factor 2)
2
1i
#36
Factor 1(Sex) 2(Risk)Level 1(M) 2(F) 1(H) 2(M) 3(L) Total
1 16* 10 13 9 4* 26PatientGroup 2 14 10 12 6 6 24Total 30 20 25 15 10 50
Now determine B(1) and B(2) for patient #51.…
• If assigned Treatment 1 (t = 1)
(a) Calculate B(t) (Assign Pt #51 to trt 1) t = 1
(1) Factor 1, Level 1(Male)
Now Proposed
K X1K X11K
Trt Group 1 16 17 2 14 14
Range =|17-14| = 3
#37
(a) Calculate B(t) (Assign Pt #51 to trt 1) t=1
(2) Factor 2, Level 3(Low Risk)
K X2K X12K
Trt Group 1 4 5 2 6 6
Range = |5-6|, = 1
* B(1) = 3(3) + 2(1) = 11
Factor 1(Sex) 2(Risk)Level 1(M) 2(F) 1(H) 2(M) 3(L) Total
1 16* 10 13 9 4* 26PatientGroup 2 14 10 12 6 6 24Total 30 20 25 15 10 50
#38
(b) Calculate B(2) (Assign Pt #51 to trt 2) t=2
(1) Factor 1, Level 1(Male)
K X1K X21K
Group 1 16 16 2 14 15Range = |16-15| = 1
(2) Factor 2, Level 3(Low Risk)
K X2k X22k
Group 1 4 42 6 7Range = |4-7| = 3
* B(2) = 3(1) + 2(3) = 9
#39
(c) Rank B(1) and B(2), measures of imbalance
Assign tt B(t) with probability
2 9 2/3
1 11 1/3
* Note: “minimization” would assign treatment 2 for sure
#40
Response Adaptive Response Adaptive Allocation ProceduresAllocation Procedures
• Use outcome data obtained during trial to influence allocation of patient to treatment
• Data-driveni.e. dependent on outcome of previous patients
• Assumes patient response known before next patient• The goal is to allocate as few patients as possible to
a seemingly inferior treatment• Issues of proper analyses quite complicated• Not widely used though much written about• Very controversial
#41
Play-the-Winner RulePlay-the-Winner Rule Zelen (1969)Zelen (1969)
• Treatment assignment depends on the outcome of previous patients
• Response adaptive assignment• When response is determined quickly• 1st subject: toss a coin, H = Trt A, T = Trt B• On subsequent subjects, assign previous treatment if it was
successful• Otherwise, switch treatment assignment for next patient• Advantage: Potentially more patients receive the better
treatment• Disadvantage: Investigator knows the next assignment
#42
Response Adaptive Response Adaptive RandomizationRandomization
Example
"Play-the-winner” Zelen (1969) JASA
TRT A S S F S S S F
TRT B S F
Patient 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ......
#43
Two-armed Bandit or Two-armed Bandit or Randomized Play-the-Winner RuleRandomized Play-the-Winner Rule
• Treatment assignment probabilities depend on observed success probabilities at each time point
• Advantage: Attempts to maximize the number of subjects on the “superior” treatment
• Disadvantage: When unequal treatment numbers result, there is loss of statistical power in the treatment comparison
#44
ECMO ExampleECMO Example• References
Michigan
1a. Bartlett R., Roloff D., et al.; Pediatrics (1985)
1b. Begg C.; Biometrika (1990)
Harvard
2a. O’Rourke P., Crone R., et al.; Pediatrics (1989)
2b. Ware J.; Statistical Science (1989)
2c. Royall R.; Statistical Science (1991)
• Extracoporeal Membrane Oxygenator(ECMO)– treat newborn infants with respiratory failure or hypertension– ECMO vs. conventional care
#45
Michigan ECMO TrialMichigan ECMO Trial• Bartlett Pediatrics (1985)
• Modified “play-the-winner”– Urn model
A ball ECMOB ball Standard controlIf success on A, add another A ball .…
– Wei & Durham JASA (1978)
• Randomized Consent Design• Results
*sickest patient
• P-Values, depending on method, values ranged.001 .05 .28
1 2* 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10ECMO S S S S S S S S SCONTROL F
#46
Harvard ECMO Trial (1)Harvard ECMO Trial (1)• O’Rourke, et al.; Pediatrics (1989)
• ECMO for pulmonary hypertension
• Background– Controversy of Michigan Trial
– Harvard experience of standard
11/13 died
• Randomized Consent Design
– Two stage1st Randomization (permuted block) switch to
superior treatment after 4 deaths in worst arm
2nd Stay with best treatment
#47
Harvard ECMO Trial (2)Harvard ECMO Trial (2)
• Results
Survival
* less severe patients
P = .054 (Fisher)
1st 2nd*ECMO 9/9 19/20CONTROL 6/10
#48
Multi-institutional TrialsMulti-institutional Trials
• Often in multi-institutional trials, there is a marked institution effect on outcome measures
• Using permuted blocks within strata, adding institution as yet another stratification factor will probably lead to sparse cells (and potentially more cells than patients!)
• Use permuted block randomization balanced within institutions
• Or use the minimization method, using institution as astratification factor
#49
Mechanics of Randomization (1)Mechanics of Randomization (1)
Basic Principle - “Analyze What is Randomized”
* Timing
• Actual randomization should be delayed until just prior to initiation of therapy
• ExampleAlprenolol Trial, Ahlmark et al (1976)– 393 patients randomized two weeks before therapy
– Only 162 patients treated, 69 alprenolol & 93 placebo
#50
Mechanics of Randomization (2)Mechanics of Randomization (2)* Operational
1. Sequenced sealed envelopes (prone to tampering!)
2. Sequenced bottles/packets
3. Phone call to central location
- Live response
- Voice Response System
4. One site PC system
5. Web based
Best plans can easily be messed up in the implementation
#51
Example of Previous Methods Example of Previous Methods (1)(1)
20 subjects, treatment A or B, risk H or L
Subject Risk1 H Randomize Using2 L3 L 1. Simple4 H5 L 2. Blocked (Size=4)6 L7 L 3. Stratify by risk + use simple8 L9 H 4. Stratify by risk + block10 L11 H12 H For each compute13 H14 H 1. Percent pts on A15 L16 L 2. For each risk group, percent of pts on A17 H18 H19 L20 H
10 subjects with H10 subjects with L
#52
Example of Previous Methods Example of Previous Methods (2)(2)1. Simple 1st Try 2nd Try
(a) 9/20 A's 7/20 A's OVERALL BY(b) H: 5/10 A's 3/10 A's SUBGROUP
L: 4/10 A's 4/10 A's
2. Blocked (No stratification)(a) 10 A's & 10 B's(b) H: 4 A's & 6 B's
L: 6 A's & 4 B's
3. Stratified with simple randomization(a) 5 A's & 15 B's(b) H: 1 A & 9 B's
L: 4 A's & 6 B's
4. Stratified with blocking(a) 10 A's & 10 B's MUST BLOCK TO MAKE
STRATIFICATION PAY(b) H: 5 A's & 5 B's OFF
L: 5 A's & 5 B's